Welcome!

Hello, RodCrosby, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Karmafist 20:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Ernest Rogers Millington, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 17:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Bomb-site, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Importance). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Bomb-site. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. James084 01:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rod: that paragraph (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom_general_election%2C_2005&diff=48488164&oldid=48471225) is about the Liberals performance in the election. Why isn't it relevant that they gained no seats from the Tories and lost several to them? Doesn't it damage their aim to replace the Tories as the Official Opposition?

If you don't think it does, why can't we let the reader decide? 82.32.21.160 12:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing the point as you state it here. I am arguing about the unjustified emphasis placed on what was a net change of TWO seats. Your point is valid, the Lib Dems did not make any advance against the Conservatives, (they in fact made a small net loss), but I feel you can phrase this better than -

• However, the Liberals lost more seats than the Conservatives did, and lost all of them to Conservative candidates.

Why don't you give it a go?

Rod. I don't know if you are aware but the Labour wards that were in Crosby constituency are not in the new Sefton C seat. Only the marginal Manor ward has any strong Labour vote and that is now a Conservative seat also. I might add that all the national research I have read points to it being a Conservative seat with the Lib-Dems in second place. I added the local election results just to illustrate the current balance for readers for whom the detailed psephology would just be confusing.

The crux of the matter Rod is that with the introduction of the 3 strong Lib-Dem Wards and the removal of Labour voters in the south, then it cannot be considered a Con-Lab marginal. In all probably it will be a safe Conservative seat. But thats my personal feeling. My basis for the article however was Anthony Wells analysis published at UK Polling Report which was why I said it was a Con - Lib marginal. And based on his track record at the last election, especially in Scotland with all the new seats created there then I'm not one to second guess him.

As I see from your forum post on the 20.5.06 on UK polling report and Anthony's reply there is some measure of doubt as to the right balance. If we could agree on what the correct balance should be, that would be far better than me just re-writing the article, then you re-writing it again... Galloglass 13.25, 28 June 2006

Rather bad form of you to reply to my first draught written when polling report was down earlier and not the amended version which included your forum post with Anthony Wells. As I'm sure you know the Lib-Dem area's withing Crosby proper have voted heavily for Labour at general elections since 1992. The Maghull and Lydiate Wards however have behaved differently with no sustainable Labour vote in the past 2 GE's. This taken with the swing of Manor to the Conservatives rather drops any chance of any 'meaningful' Labour vote through the floor. If, as expected the last Lab councillor loses their seat in Manor in 2008 then it becomes unlikely in the extreme that Labour could seriously compete for a seat in which it had no local government base. Galloglass 17.46, 28 June, 2006

I see you've resiled on our apparent understanding. Can you explain? RodCrosby 18:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I did point out that a party with no local government base could could hardly be considered in contention for this seat. I stated the evidence that I had regarding the three eastern wards and was hoping that you yourself would do what was needed. Coming back to the unsatisfactory version a month later I have tried to find a happy medium between your views and mine. If you feel you can't live with the new version you are free to do a re- write. I imagine that we'll eventually get to something we both can live with by 2009 :) Galloglass 21:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 72.14.192.14 lifted/expired. Sorry for the trouble! Request handled by: Luna Santin 19:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Stringer v. Usher, Smith, Flanagan and Fleming, by 62.25.109.196 (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Stringer v. Usher, Smith, Flanagan and Fleming fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Stringer v. Usher, Smith, Flanagan and Fleming, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 12:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've removed your comment from the Tintin article again. Wikipedia isn't a place for publishing your own viewpoint - please read WP:NOT#OR. For what you wrote to be included you need to back it up with a secondary source. EvilRedEye 18:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, another suggestion, if the reference to caricatures of non-Europeans bothers you then you could just remove it, instead of trying to counter it. EvilRedEye 18:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rod. I am after a small favour. An anon editor is 100% convinced Claire Curtis-Thomas has been selected already for Sefton Central. I have not been able to find any source that indicates this is so. Could you tell me what the current status is, if possible with a source I can quote. Thanks. Galloglass 21:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is CCT definately the Labour candidate then Rod? Galloglass 12:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that as a yes then. Galloglass 13:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking up the ball on this... I see it fits your "UK general election / by-election junkie" description! User:Warofdreams provided the data I added, and you might know the answer to a question I've just asked on their userpage: "I wonder whether you've got anything about "highest 3rd party % vote"? - ie 3-horse race. I suspect that Leeds North West was there or thereabouts in 2001 (26.9%) and 2005 (25.7%)." Any thoughts? PamD 19:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your info - we're nowhere near the top of the list, I see. It still makes for interesting campaigning! PamD 22:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest MPs

Ian Paisley, b 1926, fl 2007, aged 81+ - oldest 2007-

Piara Khabra, b 1921?, d 2007, aged 85 - oldest 2001-2007

Edward Heath, b 1916, ret 2001, aged 84 - oldest 1992-2001

Michael Foot, b 1913, ret 1992, aged 78 - oldest 1987-1992

Robert Edwards, b 1905, ret 1987, aged 82 - oldest 1979-1987

David Weitzman, b 1898, ret 1979, aged 80 - oldest 1974F-1979

:Sydney Scholefield Allen, b 1898, ret 1974F, aged 76 - oldest 1973-1974F

Irene Ward, b 1895, ret 1974F, aged 79 - oldest 1973-1974F

John Rankin, b 1890, d 1973, aged 83 - oldest 1972-1973

S.O. Davies, b 1886? d 1972, aged, 85? - oldest 1970-1972

Manny Shinwell, b 1884, ret 1970, aged 85 - oldest 1964-1970

Winston Churchill, b 1874, ret 1964, aged 89 - oldest 1964Feb-1964Sep

David Logan, b 1871, d 1964, aged 92 - oldest 1950-1964

Murdoch Macdonald, b 1866, ret 1950, aged 83 - oldest 1945-1950

Prior to Macdonald, I'm fairly confident the oldest was Will Thorne, b 1857, ret 1845, aged 87. Before him, the oldest I can find is Frederick Hall, b 1855, d 1934, aged about 77, but I'm doubtful about him. We know that, as of the 1929 GE, the oldest was T. P. O'Connor, b 1848, d 1929, aged 81. Warofdreams talk 01:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Thorne was certainly the oldest upto 1945. Remember though that Father and oldest are by definintion not necessarily the same thing, so there maybe someone who can trump O'Connor. I think if we can get back to Samuel Young or Pelham Villiers we should leave it there, since vital data prior to that is probably unverifiable, and the exercise becomes pointless. Btw, Sydney Scholefield Allen appears to have been the oldest briefly, between Rankin and Weitzman (Oct 1973-Feb 1974) RodCrosby 12:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; it'd be good to get back to Pelham Villiers. I'm claiming that O'Connor must have been the oldest as he was re-elected aged 80, and your list includes all male MPs re-elected at 80 or older. How confident are you that that list is complete? Warofdreams talk 12:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a complex matter of cross-referencing and updating. I'm confident that I have all the aged 79+ males and 70+ females (at their last election) since 1945. I set the bar at 79 rather than 80 to include Paisley because of his importance. So no, it does not include "all" over 80s. There will be a few who were younger than 79 at their last election, but staggered on until retirement when they were over 80 e.g. David Renton. But the page is for general election records - i.e. at the time of the election. RodCrosby 12:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's great for post-45; it's what I was hoping for! As it is not necessarily comprehensive for pre-45, that means I can't rely on it for O'Connor. Warofdreams talk 17:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, Irene Ward was older than Scholefield Allen, and appears to be the only oldest MP to also be female RodCrosby 16:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if you've seen this from Butler's British Political Facts, 1900-1979:

"Oldest and Youngest mps The oldest mps have been S. Young (96 in 1918); D. Logan (92 in 1964); Sir W. Churchill (89 in 1964); W. Thome (88 in 1945); R. Cameron (87 in 1913); J. Collings (86 in 1918); Sir S. Chapman (86 in 1945); E. Shinwell (85 in 1970); and SO Davies (85 in 1972)." It appears to be complete for those aged over 85 for 1900 to 1979. This means that Young was followed by Collings as the oldest MP, and that Young was the oldest MP from at least 1907. Warofdreams talk 17:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also had a search for claims of other possible oldest MPs. I've found documents claiming T. P. O'Connor, Joseph Hume and Philip Stephens as the oldest MPs at one time or another. While all these claims look plausible, Hume and O'Connor are not old enough for the list in the article. Warofdreams talk 18:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've had a stab at taking the series back. I've actually gone beyond Pelham Villiers, as there seem to be quite a few references from the late C19 specifying the oldest MP of the time. As a result, the list (with some dodgy entries, particularly in the 1920s and 30s) extends back to Joseph Warner Henley, who became the oldest MP some time before 1878. Are you able to check any of this - particularly the dodgy areas? Warofdreams talk 21:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go, but as I cautioned, don't overdo it! There is doubt over the age of some of the more recent holders (S.O. Davies, for example) and certainly in the 19th C exact ages should be taken with a pinch of salt (O'Gorman Mahon, for example has different sources with years ranging from 1799-1802 for his date of birth). Btw, on some of your recent additions you seem to have described this category as a "Political Office", when of course it is no such thing. RodCrosby 23:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm not planning on taking it any further back. There seems to be a general consensus that Mahon was born in 1800, hence his position in the list (were he born in 1801 or 1802, then Carden would have been the oldest MP from 1880 - 85, and he was generally so described at the time). He was appointed a magistrate in 1821, which I assume at the time required him to be 21 or over, giving some independent indication of his age. None of the headings really seemed appropriate, so I went for "Political Office"; on reflection, "Parliament of the United Kingdom" would be more accurate. Thanks for looking it over. For reference, I'm confident on Henley, Mahon (provided his DOB is accepted), Pelham Villiers (from '85), Mowbray, Young (from '06), Collings, Craik (from '26) O'Connor and Thorne (from '35). I'm doubtful about Pelham Villiers (pre-'79), Young (pre-'06), Abraham, Craik (pre-'26), Hall and Thorne (pre-'35). Warofdreams talk 00:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your notes on my data. I suspect you may be right on the oldest MP; although there are claims that Silverman was the oldest MP, he appears to have been younger than Edwards. I'm fairly confident on the rest of the list. The Lib-Lab MPs are Liberal-Labour MPs who were elected at by-elections as recorded by Craig; I'm planning a list of Lib-Lab MPs at some point, and it is also useful to check against new additions to the list of UK by-elections. Warofdreams talk 17:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airey Neave, 1979 (INLA) Tom Swain, 1979 (car crash) Richard Fort, 1959 (car crash) Rupert Brabner, 1945 (plane crash) JD Campbell, 1945 (plane crash) Richard Bernays, 1945 (plane crash)

Moelwyn Hughes, Carmarthen

Daniel Frankel, Mile End —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warofdreams (talk • contribs) 02:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Eric Loverseed, Eddisbury (ex-Common Wealth)

I saw your comments on the list of byelections. Hubert Duggan's article explains the situation: he had joined up at the start of the war, but became chronically ill with TB, and was laid up at his Chapel Street home with his mistress. Duggan strongly resisted attempts by the Army to have him invalided out, and eventually all they did was to transfer him to the Reserve List with a promotion. As such he was still an officer when he died, which fulfils the technical requirements for a death on active service. However, refering to him as dying on active service is highly misleading: his death had nothing to do with his service, he was not expected to report for any kind of duty, and he died at his civilian home.

Could some space in the table be found to explain the circumstances of the other Second World War deaths on active service? Some of them are similarly notable, such as those killed in transport crashes. Sam Blacketer 08:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take your points on board. However, his death was noted in the Times, in the section titled "On active service", and his Times obituary said "(he) has, in a characteristically unobtrusive way, died for his country" So we are left with the historical record and the subjective fact that he died of TB. How to approach this objectively? Well, a few historical facts to begin with. During the American Civil War, the largest number of casualties of combatants, including deaths, were caused by dysentry! In the First World War, many fell to dysentry, TB, and other diseases. In the case of Duggan, it appears he contracted TB while a combatant (I don't have the exact details, but it appears a reasonable assumption. Do you have any knowledge?) and succumbed later in London. If so, while certainly an unglamorous death, it would be unjust to dismiss him, given the historical circumstances I have outlined. The bottom line is I suppose, was the death directly or indirectly caused by service to one's country in wartime? Contracting TB in a combat situation I would say undoubtedly yes, whereas dying in a domestic train crash (Frank Heilgers MP) I would say no. Some are difficult to determine. e.g. James Baldwin-Webb MP drowned when the liner City of Benares was torpedoed. He died as a result of enemy action undoubtedly, but was he on active service? Perhaps.

On the other hand Private Patrick Munro MP was in the Home Guard and was killed firewatching at the Palace of Westminster. He was doing "his bit", in uniform, and lost his life as a result. So an undoubted yes there.

To confuse matters, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission records people like Frank Heilgers MP (train crash) and Sir Charles Cayzer MP (apparently he murdered his butler at his Scottish castle, then committed suicide!)

I have found the Times Digital Archive to be of immense use. You can get access instantly via Bedfordshire Libraries. Just fill in your details and ask for online membership only. Within a few moments you will receive a library card number and PIN to allow you searchable access of all Times newspapers 1785-1985! Perhaps you can assist in tracking down causes of death, etc. of MPs.

Finally, I know there is a plaque somewhere in the Palace of Westminster that records the names of MPs and Lords who fell in both world wars, but there is no mention of it anywhere on the internet. From memory, I think it lists 22 MPs in WW1, and 23 in WW2, but I could be wrong on that. Best Regards. RodCrosby 13:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I already have access to the Times Digital Archive through my own library and use it to do my research on biographies. I also had a look into the question of Hubert Duggan this afternoon and (typically) got a confused response.

When the House of Commons held a service in St Margaret's Church on the day after VE-Day, they paid tribute to the members who had been killed in action and those who died on active service, and Hubert Duggan's name was included on the list of those who died on active service. However, normally when MPs died on active service the form of words used in announcing the death and in moving the writ for the replacement specified it. Duggan's death almost coincided with that of Stuart Russell where this form of words was used, but in Duggan's case it wasn't. If the London Gazette's archive website was working this weekend I could give a link to show that, but it isn't.

I think your memory of the House of Commons memorial may be of the shields in the Chamber, which carry the coat of arms of those MPs killed in the First and Second World Wars. Sam Blacketer 16:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the London Gazette has returned. This reports the election of Henry Longhurst "in the place of Captain Hubert John Duggan, deceased", whereas this reports the election of William Prescott "in the place of Captain Stuart Hugh Minto Russell, died on active service". For completeness, here you can see recorded the election of Captain Basil Peto "in the place of Major John Ronald Hamilton Cartland, killed in action". Sam Blacketer 11:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have discovered an article in the Times, (Thursday, Dec 15, 1949; pg. 2; Issue 51565; col A) about the Speaker unveiling the House of Commons Book of Remembrance. It lists 22 names. Duggan is not listed, and interestingly Heilgers (train crash), Despencer-Robertson (sudden death) and Muirhead (suicide) are listed. I guess we go with that, perhaps having Duggan as a footnote? RodCrosby 14:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curchill also answered a written question in the Commons (The Times, Saturday, Jan 20, 1945; pg. 8; Issue 50046; col A ). Duggan was mentioned, as was Heilgers, but Despencer-Robertson and Muirhead were not. Three other members, Brabner, Bernays and Campbell were yet to be killed. I have completed the section based on the above information, with appropriate footnotes. The answer seems to be either 22 or 23(including Duggan) MPs who "officially" died on active service, depending on the source. What do you think? Btw, the First World War seems harder to trace, since the WW1 book of remembrance wasn't opened until 1932, and the Times doesn't seem to have reported the names of those therein RodCrosby 23:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might be able to help you with that as I can get hold of a copy of 'The House of Commons Book of Remembrance' for the First World War. Sam Blacketer 14:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have it now; it lists 22 Members, seven officers and a large number of sons of Members. Do you think we could run to a new article, say List of British Parliamentarians who died in war-time? Sam Blacketer 20:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks, where did you get that from? It must be a rare, valuable book. Perhaps you could just chuck the names in here, and I can do the checking, and update the relevant page. Firstly, on the wording, it's not "in wartime", it's not "due to to enemy action", it's "on active service", which seems to have a broad enough meaning to include some of the surprising individuals we have discussed! That was the official take, and I guess we should stick with it. I don't know where it should go, Records of Members of Parliament seems a good enough place for the time being. It started off as causes of by-elections, but that did not include the three whose deaths came in 1945, and I wanted them all listed together somewhere. I'd prefer if we could keep MPs and Lords distinct.

Btw, there is a book called Chronology of British Parliamentary by Elections 1833-1987, by the redoubtable FWS Craig, which among other things lists the "active service" by-elections going back to the Crimean War. Unfortunately,it is not in a library anywhere near me. You could try WorldCat perhaps? RodCrosby 22:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Roland Oliver (lawyer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ukexpat (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your comment on the Ruth Ellis article about an edit by another contributor and thought it was very rude, especially since you had the temerity to mention 'good manners'. It would be nice if you could be a bit more polite to other editors in the future. I'm not saying the other edit was good (or bad for that matter), but your response was not helpful. Malick78 (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it was rude. Blunt maybe, but not rude. It's irritating to see an obsessive new editor, pushing a point of view in a crass way. It amounts to vandalism in my view. RodCrosby (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I being called rude? I had no intention of appearing like that. I merely altered the text. Ruth Ellis's mother was a Belgian Jew - clearly stated in RUTH ELLIS MY SISTER'S SECRET LIFE. I also don't understand why the section about Moreen Gleeson, who saw Ruth Ellis on the night of the shooting and was worried that Ruth was going to kill herself,has been deleted. Yet the previous sentence referring to the Evening Standard's incorrect version of events has been left in. I am totally confused. Perhaps you can explain. Thanks.Charlton1 (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, can you come discuss your change to London mayoral election, 2008 on the talk page? Cheers,--Gordon (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - the information on boundary changes you've been adding to UK general election records looks interesting, but I wonder whether it's in the most appropriate article - they aren't really records. Perhaps it could fit better into Number of Westminster MPs or a new article? Warofdreams talk 00:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

probably right, although "records" has (sensibly, imho) broadened its meaning from "superlatives" to "interesting facts". I may look elsewhere though RodCrosby (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Henry lucy.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barack Obama. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 19:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, that an article to which you have recently contributed, Barack Obama, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.

What kind of a joke is it to revert a referenced US court case, and accuse the original editor of engaging in edit wars, putting them on "probation." Does not compute??? RodCrosby (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"You" were not placed on probation. Articles about Barack Obama are on article probation. It applies to all editors on the article equally. As to the edit-warring notification, I encourage you to read WP:BRD. If an edit you make is reverted, the proper course of action is not to revert again, but to take the discussion to the talk page. Your edit was not cited directly to a reliable source, but rather to a decidedly partisan website. As to the content itself, anyone can file a lawsuit against anyone for anything -- heck, I could file one against you because I don't like the color of the shirt you wore today (and no, that's not a legal threat, just an intentionally ridiculous example). It does not mean that the lawsuit has any merit, is notable, or will go anywhere. If it does, the issue can be discussed then. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 19:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been cautioned, yet you continue to disrupt the Obama talk page by taunting and insulting other editors.[1][2][3] Please stop. This may be your last warning. If you wish to make constructive contributions you may do so. However, you have disregarded the terms the community has decided to follow for these pages. It's your choice - either be courteous and constructive, or don't edit the Obama pages. Wikidemo (talk) 00:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a robot, or a thinking, sentient being? If so, what the hell do you mean by "you have been cautioned"? Like when and by whom, and for what? I was told to stop reverting - unjustified imho - since I didn't start it. But hey, I abided by that. Now some fat fool thinks it's appropriate to taunt me, so he asked for it. Get a bloody life! RodCrosby (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment here[4] is clearly disruptive, especially the edit summary describing editors' actions as "fascism." Regarding the other part of your comment, it is not safe to ignore a community sanction and demands that you honor it. If you persist you may well be blocked or banned. Wikidemo (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either put up, or shut-up. Show me your authority for your silly threats and ridiculous bullying, "community sanctions", "warnings", "cautions", etc or better still, get a Life... RodCrosby (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make it simple. This is your own talk page so you can vent all you want here. If you avoid trouble on the Obama pages you'll be fine.Wikidemo (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make it even simpler. What is your authority for making your proclamations? If you can't produce anything, I have no compunction in ignoring you. RodCrosby (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]